Argument18 【Chasing For "6" Score】第一次作业

棉花糖星星UID: 2324302

题目：ARGUMENT 18 -

提纲：
1.       PC高速公路的安全状况是否真的没有好转值得商榷??引用的数据是全县事故率而非实施路段的&这个措施最近刚刚实行就已经降低了事故率，未来还有降低的可能
2.       即使高速公路的安全状真的没好转，也不能说该措施没有起到作用??有许多其他影响事故率的因素没有提及&正因司机超速导致事故率下降不多
3.       将PC与BC错误类比，没有说明两者间有任何可比性，更何况BC的措施还是5年前实施的。
结论：应进一步证明高速公路状况没有得到改善及措施的无效，提供PC与BC的更详细数据来判断建议是否可行。
In this editorial, the author alleged that the latest safety effort which lower the speed limit of Prunty Country has failed, and the former speed limit should be restored for the reason that the accident rate didn’t decrease enough. Meanwhile the author demonstrated to undertake certain kind of road improvement instead as Bulter Country did five years ago, considering the reporter accident in Bulter Country were fewer since then. Yet I find this argument problematic as it stands, for several reasons.

Since the author get the conclusion based on the seemingly fact that the highway safety didn’t be improved, firstly query whether the situation of the highway safety now is like what he/she said. There are two reasons for its unconvincingness. The first is that the author cited the accident rate through out Prunty Country to strengthen the conclusion, yet the safety effort is only taken on the major country roads while perhaps the accident happened on other roads is increasing. The second is that this policy has only been taken for a short time, and the accident rate has indeed decreased, we have reason to believe that the rate reduction will continue. Accordingly, the conclusion amounts to an unfair judgement.

Even if we concede that the highway safety didn’t be improved, the second flaw must be pointed out is that the fact that most drivers exceeded the new speed limit and the accident rate didn’t decrease to a great extent is not sufficient to conclude that the safety effort is out of action. Many other factors that might influence the accident rate, including the road condition, the climate of PC, or even the spiritual situations of the troublemakers, haven’t been referred to in the argument. It is entirely possible that the drivers haven’t get used to the new speed limit and thus lead to the slow decreasing of the accident rate. Therefore, we can’t simply rule out the possibility that it is other factors mentioned above rather than the lower speed limit that caused the accidents happened after the new policy go into effect.  

Finally, it must be noted out that the author committed an apparent fallacy of false analogy between Prunty Country and Bulter Country. No evidence can prove that there are any comparability between these two regions, either on the traffic flow volume, the transit system, or on other respects. And in any case, the project of Bulter Country was completed 5 years ago, many of the factors that may be effective have changed egregiously. Then how can the Prunty Country undertake the same project of a region that may be so different from itself?

To conclude, the evidences incited lend no strong support to the argument and the conclusion failed to be persuasive enough. Better evidences to prove the still-be disodered situation of the highway safety and the ineffectiveness of the new safety policy are needed to bolster the argument. Besides, it requires more detailed information of the two countries to evaluate the feasibility of the road improvement project in Prunty Country.

scentyUID: 2363244

In this editorial, the author alleged that the latest safety effort which lower the speed limit of Prunty Country(PC)否则下面不可简写 has failed, and the former speed limit should be restored for the reason that the accident rate didn’t decrease enough. Meanwhile the author demonstrated to undertake certain kind of road improvement instead as Bulter Country did five years ago, considering the reporterreported accidentaccidents in Bulter Country werehad been fewer since then. Yet I find this argument problematic as it stands, for several reasons.

Since the author gethas gotten/got因为上一段你对author的处理都是过去时所以我觉得你这里应该一致。 the conclusion based on the seemingly fact that the highway safety didn’t be improved, firstly query whether the situation of the highway safety now is like what he/she said. who queries? Or u use “query”here as a noun? whether the query to the situation of the highway safety now is like what he said is questionable.There are two reasons for its unconvincingness. The first is我只是觉得the first is that…the second is that..我没有见过。如果你是对的，那我学习了 that the author hascited the accident rate through outthroughout Prunty Country to strengthen the conclusion, yet the safety effort is only taken on the major country roads while perhaps the accidents happened on other roads isare increasing.As far as the speed limit on main roads,probably many drivers prefer taking branches which the speed limit is still 55 mph in order to get destination faster.提出个可能，使你提出的可能性不那么单薄。 The second is that this policy has only been taken for a short time, and the accident rate has indeed decreased, we have reason to believe that the rate reduction will continue. 为什么只进行了短时间有效，就推出长时间有效？很多情况会变化的，而且这么短的时间交通事故数量下降可能不仅仅因为限速，可能碰上春节大家不出门或者天气不好人们选择公共交通等等。Accordingly, the conclusion amounts toarrives at an unfair judgement.

Even if we concede that the highway safety didn’t be improved,这个假设从何而来？限速是用在country road上而不是highway the second flaw must be pointed out is that the fact that most drivers exceeded the new speed limit and the accident rate didn’t decrease to a great extent is not sufficient to conclude that the safety effort is out of action. Many other factors that might influence the accident rate, including the road condition, the climate of PC, or even the spiritual situations of the troublemakers, haven’t据说最好写成cannot,would not,have not.. been referred to in the argument. It is entirely possible that the drivers haven’t getgot used to the new speed limit and thus lead to the slow decreasing of the accident rate. Therefore, we can’t simply rule out the possibility that it is other factors mentioned above rather than the lower speed limit that caused the accidents happened after the new policy go into effect.  感觉逻辑不通顺，可能是司机不习惯新限速导致事故数量缓慢减少，而不是限速本身。但是作者从没有说过由于限速导致事故发生。

Finally, it must be noted out that the author committed an apparent fallacy of false analogy between Prunty Country and Bulter Country. No evidence can prove that there areis any comparability between these two regions, either on the traffic flow我问过美国同学，说可能这个flow不需要 volume, the transit system, or on other respects是不是笔误aspects?. And in any case, the project of Bulter Country was completed 5 years ago, many of the factors that may be effective have changed egregiously. Then how can the Prunty Country undertake the same project of a region that may be so different from itself? BC和PC不同，以及BC的规定五年前实施都展开不够，觉得点到为止过于单薄。

To conclude, the evidences incitedcited lend no strong support to the argument and the conclusion failed to be persuasive enough. Better evidences to prove the still-be disodered situation of the highway safety and the ineffectiveness of the new safety policy are needed to bolster the argument. Besides, it requires more detailed information of the two countries to evaluate the feasibility of the road improvement project in Prunty Country.

我觉得你应该注意逻辑转折词的应用，还有时态。因为我掌握的也不好，所以不好纠正你的。
但务必使别人在阅读时尽量注意不要引起歧义。

[ 本帖最后由 scenty 于 2008-3-5 10:55 编辑 ]

fainting_robinUID: 2336582

提纲：1.       PC高速公路的安全状况是否真的没有好转值得商榷??引用的数据是全县事故率而非实施路段的&这个措施最近刚刚实行就已经降低了事故率，未来还有降低的可能2.       即使高速公路的安全状真的没好转，也不能说该措施没有起到作用??有许多其他影响事故率的因素没有提及&正因司机超速导致事故率下降不多3.       将PC与BC错误类比，没有说明两者间有任何可比性，更何况BC的措施还是5年前实施的。结论：应进一步证明高速公路状况没有得到改善及措施的无效，提供PC与BC的更详细数据来判断建议是否可行。（提纲很清晰，第二点里可以补充，措施可能没有得到很好的实施，因为文中提到很多人超速） In this editorial, the author alleges that the latest safety effort which lower the speed limit of Prunty Country has failed, and the former speed limit should be restored for the reason that the accident rate didn’t decrease enough. Meanwhile the author demonstrates to undertake certain kind of road improvement instead as Bulter Country did five years ago, considering the reporterreported accidentaccidents in Bulter Country werehad been fewer since then. Yet I find this argument problematic as it stands, for several reasons. (因为author的话还在上面摆着，所以一般现在时即可)

Since the author gets the conclusion based on the seemingly fact that the highway safety didn’t be improved, firstly query whether or not the situation of the highway safety now is like what he/she said. here are two reasons for its unconvincingness. To begin with, the author cites the accident rate  throughout Prunty Country to strengthen the conclusion, yet the safety effort is only taken on the major country roads while perhaps the accidents happened on other roads are increasing. Further,this policy has only been taken for a short time; and the accident rate has indeed decreased. We have reasons to believe that the rate reduction will continue. (这里感觉逻辑性不够，什么reasons,你最好进一步阐述)Accordingly, the conclusion arrives at(scenty提供的词组，很好用)an unfair judgement.

Even if we concede that the highway safety didn’t improve （无需被动）,the second flaw must be pointed out is that the fact that most drivers exceeded the new speed limit （对于这点你没理解好。事故率降低的少，正可以用超速来解释，不是限速无法达到效果，而是限速的措施没有落实好）and the accident rate didn’t decrease to a great extent is not sufficient to conclude that the safety effort is out of action. Many other factors that might influence the accident rate, including the road condition, the climate of PC, or even the spiritual situations of the troublemakers, haven’tbeen referred to in the argument. It is entirely possible that the drivers haven’t  got used to the new speed limit and thus lead to the slow decreasing of the accident rate. Therefore, we can’t simply rule out the possibility that it is other factors mentioned above rather than the lower speed limit that caused the accidents happened after the new policy go into effect.

Finally, it must be noted out that the author committed an apparent fallacy of false analogy between Prunty Country and Bulter Country. No evidence can prove that there are any comparability between these two regions, either on the traffic volume（这个，我学习了~）, the transit system, or on other aspects. And in any case, the project of Bulter Country was completed 5 years ago, many of the factors that may be effective have changed egregiously. Then how can the Prunty Country undertake the same project of a region that may be so different from itself?
To conclude, the evidences cited lend no strong support to the argument and the conclusion fails to be persuasive enough. Better evidences to prove the still-be disodered situation of the highway safety and the ineffectiveness of the new safety policy are needed to bolster the argument. (这个句子似乎有点头重脚轻。。)Besides, it requires more detailed information of the two countries to evaluate the feasibility of the road improvement project in Prunty Country.

scenty语言上改得很细致，我提不出更多意见了：）整体上没问题，攻击顺序安排的也可以，就是第二点的展开上，我已经提了自己的看法。Bless~



[ 本帖最后由 fainting_robin 于 2008-3-5 23:21 编辑 ]